(Original post by johnaulich)
In economic terms, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference so long as it doesn't leave the economy or get hauled up somewhere. Government expenditure certainly has an affect on the economy but that's not the way to judge it.

Of course it is, the budget deficit and the overall financial deficit we're in at the moment is basically the focus of tory policies, labour have conceded that austerity is needed also. If it wasn't a fundamental factor then it wouldn't be included. You can't just sweep it under the carpet its a real issue that needs to be addressed and increased immigration purely to address the economic downturn isnt the way to do it.

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Of course it is, the budget deficit and the overall financial deficit we're in at the moment is basically the focus of tory policies, labour have conceded that austerity is needed also. If it wasn't a fundamental factor then it wouldn't be included. You can't just sweep it under the carpet its a real issue that needs to be addressed and increased immigration purely to address the economic downturn isnt the way to do it.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the way to measure a capitalist economy isn't by comparing government expenditure to income. Within this conversation, it doesn't make a blind bit of different what your politics are. One reason why we have gone into a double dip recession is because the government is paying out less in benefits and goods and services, to shore up the deficit, while simultaneously removing that money from the economy by paying down the debt. Osbourne wrongly assumed the private sector, and in particular the petit bourgeois, would be able to pick up the slack but it cannot, partly because banks won't lend them money. So you can see two things: that government expenditure and the economy are linked but in a different way to what you think, and that government expenditure and income are not the same as the economy.

(Original post by johnaulich)
That isn't what I said. You can't be pro free market and anti immigration, the two viewpoints aren't compatible... The word free is fairly binary. Either you are free to associate with who you want or you are not. I'm not pro free market, I just feel this irrational inconsistency needs to be acknowledged.

It can't be a free market when it's drowning in red tape either. It seems some regulations are fine whilst others are not. There's nothing irrational in wanting sensible regulation of immigration laws, ie not importing workers when we have able people here on benefits because they can't get jobs. If the market is less free because of that, then so be it.

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
It doesn't take a degree in economics to realise that if an immigrant is costing more than their contributing that it is not efficient or feasible.

If im generating £1Bn in tax for the country but costing the government 1.5Bn then just because thats a lot of money circulation doesn't make it a good thing.

Surely anyone can see that?

depending on how you value cost, which is difficult when placing them as citizens. Ultimately what you might find is that the cost of retaining an immigrant on benefits is monetarily cheaper than a rich immigrant who avoids tax through offshore accounts. Similarly though, if a high flying immigrant creates hundreds of jobs for other people, then the costs qualitatively outwiegh the benefits. The problem is that you can't treat people like commodities, because the economy is alot more complicated than simply 'hes on benefits therefore hes costing the state'.

So really, under your premise, its actually better to keep immigrants on benefits, if examined through purely monetary analysis.

(Original post by Phantom_X)
depending on how you value cost, which is difficult when placing them as citizens. Ultimately what you might find is that the cost of retaining an immigrant on benefits is monetarily cheaper than a rich immigrant who avoids tax through offshore accounts. Similarly though, if a high flying immigrant creates hundreds of jobs for other people, then the costs qualitatively outwiegh the benefits. The problem is that you can't treat people like commodities, because the economy is alot more complicated than simply 'hes on benefits therefore hes costing the state'.

So really, under your premise, its actually better to keep immigrants on benefits, if examined through purely monetary analysis.

Lol thats a different argument entirely, you can't say an immigrant whos on benefits is most likely a better choice than a high flyer who's avoiding tax as tax evasion or even tax avoidance is morally wrong and/or illegal which needs to be addressed. Indeed theres MPs and people in a position of responsibility who avoid tax and this will always happen. Its never going to be better to retain an immigrant on benefits, Economically or morally.

If an immigrant creates a lot of jobs for the country how is that an adverse cost? hes helping stimulate the economy which is what this whole argument is about.

Im not saying that any person who may not be economically beneficial to the state should not be welcome. IE someone with health problems or whatever who would be. But the premise of bringing vast quantities of migrants when there are sparce jobs around anyway is illogical. Its just making people more dependant on welfare and decreasing morale for the whole country. Theres no labour shortage, by basic principle you shouldn't supply masses of excess labour when there is no demand.

And another thing, if its so wrong to be fiscally conservative? Im not saying its the be all and end all of an economy but it sure does offer much more stability and security for the country as a whole than a spend now ask questions later tactic. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that what i said could be interpretated as your closing statement but i assure you thats completely unfounded

(Original post by johnaulich)
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the way to measure a capitalist economy isn't by comparing government expenditure to income. Within this conversation, it doesn't make a blind bit of different what your politics are. One reason why we have gone into a double dip recession is because the government is paying out less in benefits and goods and services, to shore up the deficit, while simultaneously removing that money from the economy by paying down the debt. Osbourne wrongly assumed the private sector, and in particular the petit bourgeois, would be able to pick up the slack but it cannot, partly because banks won't lend them money. So you can see two things: that government expenditure and the economy are linked but in a different way to what you think, and that government expenditure and income are not the same as the economy.

If you want to talk about capitalist economies, then what about the fundamental principle of supply and demand? why do we need masses of excess labour when we have a large unemployment rate as it is. We have no demand for labour as we have done during immigration surges throughout different eras so why do we have to be supplied?. The problems with our economy are significantly linked to the situation in europe, the government bracingg itself and cutting spending to shelter us from further problems is a good thing, it can be seen in places like the USA and even the later labour government era that massive cash injections into the economy offer little benefit. Im not confused, If you asked me what i would recommend to do with respect to the economy as a whole my answer would be different, im addressing the topic that Osborne thinks higher levels of immigration will perk up the economy, I believe this to be completely unfounded fiscally. If you want to talk about monetary circulation how is a dependant immigrant (which is the sort we are talking about) going to be an asset when their circulating money we gave them? Im not naive to believe that if you bring nothing we need into the economy that we need, especially when we have a labour excess and you take out of the system .. how can there be any form of benefit tell me that? and don't give me any cultural benefits because ive had that shuved down my throat and its completely bull. And another thing the whole 'citizens dont want those jobs and immigrants are taking them because we dont want them' is also unfounded. Recent studies have shown that students and young people aged 16-25 unemployment has risen massively but like 30% and like 400,000 out of education are searching. This has been noted to be a direct correlation to immigration. Its a figleaf of pretence that they offer any massive benefit that would redeem our current economic situation and i havent seen ANY evidence that whould show me otherwise. I think you're the one thats confused.

We live on a small island, we have a large population in my opinion for the size of the country. With an increased population we need to spend more on our infrastructure, look at the railways for example. I've no problem with immigrants who want to contribute bring them in, I've a problem with anyone who genuinely does not want to contribute regardless of race, colour, sexual orientation, creed, religion, whatever.

By all means bring in immigrants, but look at our current population, encourage our economically inactive to work, those who can work, and refuse to, should not expect ANY help from government. Jobs should go to those who have the skills for them. If you want to be a free-rider, then so be it, its your loss.

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Lol thats a different argument entirely, you can't say an immigrant whos on benefits is most likely a better choice than a high flyer who's avoiding tax as tax evasion or even tax avoidance is morally wrong and/or illegal which needs to be addressed.

From a monetary level, I certainly can. Your original post i commented on looked at cost/benefit analysis of individual migrants. Ie. cheaper migrants are usually better- hence, if a migrant costs less in terms of welfare (+ consumption) in comparison to a wealthy migrant who costs more to the state due to tax avoidance etc, then Im not sure why youve suddenly reversed the position.

Indeed theres MPs and people in a position of responsibility who avoid tax and this will always happen. Its never going to be better to retain an immigrant on benefits, Economically or morally.

Moral arguments are different- and would take up an entire thread. I am looking at this from the view of economics, and in that right, you still havent proved your position.

If an immigrant creates a lot of jobs for the country how is that an adverse cost? hes helping stimulate the economy which is what this whole argument is about.

hence, it was an example of 'swings and roundabouts', if you are able to read, i suggest you read the comment again. I said, that if we take your economic view that migrants who cost more than they produce should be deported/refused entry, and from that we deduce that richer migrants who avoid tax tend to be in this bracket, then regardless of how many jobs they create, they are still the 'greater' economic evil. Hence, I continue to argue that you need to reasess your position. I'm simply criticising your view, not presenting you with mine.

Im not saying that any person who may not be economically beneficial to the state should not be welcome. IE someone with health problems or whatever who would be. But the premise of bringing vast quantities of migrants when there are sparce jobs around anyway is illogical. Its just making people more dependant on welfare and decreasing morale for the whole country. Theres no labour shortage, by basic principle you shouldn't supply masses of excess labour when there is no demand.

Theres a massive amount of expensive labour- thats the problem here- and that really only applies to the EU and such, where cheap labour is easily available. Its basically like saying that in a given area, there is an abundant degree of expensive houses but not enough people to afford them, but because of the quantity, there is no need for cheaper housing. The point of businesses is to produce things with as minimal cost to the consumer as possible- protecting british workers simply pushes prices up, or creates incentives to outsource jobs overseas.
And another thing, if its so wrong to be fiscally conservative? Im not saying its the be all and end all of an economy but it sure does offer much more stability and security for the country as a whole than a spend now ask questions later tactic. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that what i said could be interpretated as your closing statement but i assure you thats completely unfounded

This is another argument entirely, and I agree with the premise in good times- however, in times such as this, such a course is self defeating, as George Osborne et al. are finding out at the moment. Secondly, if you had even the remotest idea of how national security works, you would note that fiscal conservativism=/= stability.

From a monetary level, I certainly can. Your original post i commented on looked at cost/benefit analysis of individual migrants. Ie. cheaper migrants are usually better- hence, if a migrant costs less in terms of welfare (+ consumption) in comparison to a wealthy migrant who costs more to the state due to tax avoidance etc, then Im not sure why youve suddenly reversed the position.

I fail to understand from your previous thread what the benfits there are when retaining immigrant workers on welfare. They the stuff i see is barely a benefit and the circulation stuff is rubbish - im aware that is a key aspect of an economy but when your circulating government money then its NOT a benefit as that moneys already in the system in one way or another.[/B] Even so you're making an assumptions that all wealthy immigrants avoid tax or do something disingenuous to the system which is clearly unfounded. So if we assume only that even 50% live fairly when there are clearly a lot more. Then they are still much more productive as a whole when say 80% of the others take from the system. Even if they do avoid tax there doing a profession which is sort after in the country and possess valuable highly trained skills. Your point is just non sensical about retaining immigrants on welfare. Do you honestly think that if you raised that point in any public debate that anyone would commend it? Even if i sympathise with your point you're basically saying that retaining a low earning immigrant over a high flying tax avoiding one is simply the lesser of 2 evils, but still illogical none the less. ECONOMICALLY your point is completely refuted.

hence, it was an example of 'swings and roundabouts', if you are able to read, i suggest you read the comment again. I said, that if we take your economic view that migrants who cost more than they produce should be deported/refused entry, and from that we deduce that richer migrants who avoid tax tend to be in this bracket, then regardless of how many jobs they create, they are still the 'greater' economic evil. Hence, I continue to argue that you need to reasess your position. I'm simply criticising your view, not presenting you with mine.

In fact going through most of your arguments your basically hanging onto the idea that high flyers avoid tax, which is a load of bollacks, its not a fact of my reading its your bogus assumptions which are COMPLETELY unfounded. So you’re saying businesses like Kraft and Tata are secretly tax avoiding? No that’s BS. The argument which you haven’t directly addressed without throwing out this straw man fallacy is that ‘immigrant workers who are on welfare should not be retained’.

Theres a massive amount of expensive labour- thats the problem here- and that really only applies to the EU and such, where cheap labour is easily available. Its basically like saying that in a given area, there is an abundant degree of expensive houses but not enough people to afford them, but because of the quantity, there is no need for cheaper housing. The point of businesses is to produce things with as minimal cost to the consumer as possible- protecting british workers simply pushes prices up, or creates incentives to outsource jobs overseas.

The thing is, that with the minimum wage being £6.08 an hour for 21+ and £4.98 for 18-20 then immigrants will not significantly or if at all cheaper than the British work force. I know loads of people that would love a 6 quid an hour job. In the grander scheme of things unless you’re producing for pennies anyway like in china its not going to be a massive profit margin. True that businesses do go abroad to access that cheaper labour but that has no bearing on this argument, regardless of how many ‘low’ paid immigrants you bring in on rock bottom wage its simply impossible to compete with such cheap labour abroad. British workers aren’t all lazy and benefit Jeremy Kyle scroungers like the liberal media always try to make out in these arguments.

This argument as dragged out quite far and it seems we are both just reiterating similar points over. Lets just agree to disagree, Im not changing my viewpoint as i believe im right and it appears the same with you. But if this seriously becomes an issue in the HOC i wonder what public opinions going to be.. I don't think retaining immigrants on welfare is going to be taken in a good light.. i dont even think George Osborne would agree with you on that point and hes the one suggesting it..

I fail to understand from your previous thread what the benfits there are when retaining immigrant workers on welfare. They the stuff i see is barely a benefit and the circulation stuff is rubbish - im aware that is a key aspect of an economy but when your circulating government money then its NOT a benefit as that moneys already in the system in one way or another.[/B]

sigh, obviously you haven't actually got what im saying here. We both agree that people living off welfare is a societally a bad thing. The original text argued that low skilled migrants are bad because they cost the state in terms of welfare, more than they produce- which would be valuable IF people were commodities, which, fortunately they aren't. BUT for hypothetical reasons, if we do commodify individuals, I argue that tax evasion is a higher evil. This is because the amount of money LOST in tax (as a higher % bracket) alongside the necessary regulatory authorities needed to detect such evasion is higher than the amount migrants 'cost' in terms of living. of course, economics is more complicated, and migrants do generate tax through consumption (if you are talking about circulation, then technically all printed money is in one way or another, government money) as well as other forms of expenditure such as services which generates more money throgh an exchange effect. So I hope you can see how simplistic it is simply to look at migrants in the same way you look at consumables.

Even so you're making an assumptions that all wealthy immigrants avoid tax or do something disingenuous to the system which is clearly unfounded.

I was being hypothetical- just as your point would be invalid if immigrants did actually cost more than they produce, which is also largely an unfounded claim.

So if we assume only that even 50% live fairly when there are clearly a lot more. Then they are still much more productive as a whole when say 80% of the others take from the system.

What wonderful statistics. Im surprised the Nobel Prize committee haven't called you yet for your obviously well informed research and analysis.

Even if they do avoid tax there doing a profession which is sort after in the country and possess valuable highly trained skills.

1.) * Sought after, not sort after, 2.) This is not necessarily true at all- what if the company in question is one that sells bogus financial technologies which simply facilitate poor banking practice or distort trading? It generates a lot of money, but its not necessarily a societal good in the long run. More importantly, the question is not the entrepreneur, its the actual employment itself- and if companies, such as technology companies (which are often founded by migrants) end up outsourcing jobs overseas, while also avoiding tax, would you still justify that as ok because of 'sought after skills' ? There is an evil in allowing such practices, as Im sure you would agree.

Your point is just non sensical about retaining immigrants on welfare. Do you honestly think that if you raised that point in any public debate that anyone would commend it? As mentioned before, Im simply employing your argument. My opinion is completely different and also an irrelevance in our discussion here. I am curious as to why you feel it is effective to look at individuals as consumables that have a monolithic, quantitative value- and stating that if this were true, then the least efficient component would infact be rich tax evaders. Im not saying retaining migrants on welfare is good (it's not).

Even if i sympathise with your point you're basically saying that retaining a low earning immigrant over a high flying tax avoiding one is simply the lesser of 2 evils, but still illogical none the less. ECONOMICALLY your point is completely refuted. Sigh, you haven't refuted anything. You've simply tried to justify why tax avoidance is ok, and then spewed some silly rhetoric which doesn't even make that much sense anyway. AND you haven't read my original reply to you, still

hence, it was an example of 'swings and roundabouts', if you are able to read, i suggest you read the comment again. I said, that if we take your economic view that migrants who cost more than they produce should be deported/refused entry, and from that we deduce that richer migrants who avoid tax tend to be in this bracket, then regardless of how many jobs they create, they are still the 'greater' economic evil. Hence, I continue to argue that you need to reasess your position. I'm simply criticising your view, not presenting you with mine.

In fact going through most of your arguments your basically hanging onto the idea that high flyers avoid tax, which is a load of bollacks, its not a fact of my reading its your bogus assumptions which are COMPLETELY unfounded.

No, I have not said high flyers avoid tax at all, just as I have not said all immigrants sponge off welfare. I used your original statement, that it is "economically unsound to retain people that cost the state more than they produce" and illustrated how valuing consumption and production in human beings is very different to quantifying something like a machine or a chicken. I have told you that most human beings 'produce' to a certain extent, that money circulation in one way or another is owned by central banks anyway, and that if one is to quantify costs and benefits, then overall, tax avoidance is much more costly than retaining benefits. the Joseph Rowntreee foundation published quite a few papers on this, and I will send them to you once I have some time. So unless the long term benefits outwiegh lost tax, then you can't really justify your position. In this case, if a large production company chooses to outsource its jobs to India, while still avoiding base rates of tax in the UK, then can that be morally justified? I'd find it difficult to do so.

So you’re saying businesses like Kraft and Tata are secretly tax avoiding? Please look up the word hypothetical, for the love of God.

No that’s BS. The argument which you haven’t directly addressed without throwing out this straw man fallacy is that ‘immigrant workers who are on welfare should not be retained’.

Again, this was never said. What I actually said, again, was that its less expensive, when using your model.

Theres a massive amount of expensive labour- thats the problem here- and that really only applies to the EU and such, where cheap labour is easily available. Its basically like saying that in a given area, there is an abundant degree of expensive houses but not enough people to afford them, but because of the quantity, there is no need for cheaper housing. The point of businesses is to produce things with as minimal cost to the consumer as possible- protecting british workers simply pushes prices up, or creates incentives to outsource jobs overseas.

The thing is, that with the minimum wage being £6.08 an hour for 21+ and £4.98 for 18-20 then immigrants will not significantly or if at all cheaper than the British work force. I know loads of people that would love a 6 quid an hour job. In the grander scheme of things unless you’re producing for pennies anyway like in china its not going to be a massive profit margin. True that businesses do go abroad to access that cheaper labour but that has no bearing on this argument, regardless of how many ‘low’ paid immigrants you bring in on rock bottom wage its simply impossible to compete with such cheap labour abroad. British workers aren’t all lazy and benefit Jeremy Kyle scroungers like the liberal media always try to make out in these arguments.

Again, its not even about wages- its about taxation. National Insurance tax, assorted employment taxes etc- actually make it expensive. A lot of migrants work within a 'black market' where tax is non applicable, which is why undercutting is a lot easier to do. I used to tutor privately, and earned more money through direct cash payments than the registered tutoring business my friends were working for- the reason was because 20% of my paycheck wasn't cut. Even here, you can see that people can still be productive. In fact, a lot of migrants with labour skills benefit from this- which is also why deregulation measures are needed if British workers are ever to be as competitive as EU migrant workers.

This argument as dragged out quite far and it seems we are both just reiterating similar points over. Lets just agree to disagree, Im not changing my viewpoint as i believe im right and it appears the same with you. But if this seriously becomes an issue in the HOC i wonder what public opinions going to be.. I don't think retaining immigrants on welfare is going to be taken in a good light.. i dont even think George Osborne would agree with you on that point and hes the one suggesting it..

'im not changing my viewpoint because I beleive I'm right'- .....what was the point of the discussion? In fact, I'm more than willing to engage with your opinions, IF the issues i presented actually are adressed, which they havent been.

Public opinion is likely to be (a) more workers protection, (b) more workers rights and (c) more regulation- which will perpetuate the existing problems even further.

And for the love of God, I did not say that immigrants on welfare should be encouraged. What I am saying is that they are a minimal problem compared to wider problems of corporate irresponsibility.

(Original post by Phantom_X)
'im not changing my viewpoint because I beleive I'm right'- .....what was the point of the discussion? In fact, I'm more than willing to engage with your opinions, IF the issues i presented actually are adressed, which they havent been.

Public opinion is likely to be (a) more workers protection, (b) more workers rights and (c) more regulation- which will perpetuate the existing problems even further.

And for the love of God, I did not say that immigrants on welfare should be encouraged. What I am saying is that they are a minimal problem compared to wider problems of corporate irresponsibility.

Lol the 'statistics' i said were i said Say is we said this number and that number i never said they were the actual numbers, they were hypothetical LEARN TO READ (as you say). Your one of these typical liberals that thinks that because someone don't agree with him he tries talking down to people. You've provided absolutely no evidence or anything even tangible to work with. You deserve a nobel prize for being the most ridiculous debater on TSR. You make out you know everything about this subject but haven't even listed anything credible. And when someone doesn't agree with your points you say they haven't read even though what you actually said was a load of crap. Go sit on your ivory tower if it makes you feel better but god help us if you ever get in charge of any economic office. You talk about capitalism when you undermine its basic concepts. Where do you get your facts from? the guardian? you've just regurgitated another load of crap AGAIN with absolutely no basis. Get your head out your ass and stop trying to be mr moral behind your keyboard.

Or am i a racist and a bigot for not agreeing with your soppy liberal policies?

And if your SOOOO right and i dont have a clue why is the tory government trying to prevent immigrants who are not economically independant from coming and trying to cap non EU workers to jobs 30k +?

I've tried to conduct a civillised debate with you and you just keep trying to have little digs like you're smarter and better informed than me just because you don't agree with what ive said.

And one last thing Show me some REAL statistical evidence from a legitimate official source that actually supports holding immigrants on welfare like some sort of reserve commodity? YOU CAN'T

(Original post by SebCross)I'm not sure there's really been a 'social fabric' of Britain since the turn of the twentieth century. Globalisation has meant we've embraced more of the rest of the world and have cast aside much about ourselves. That's just what happens in an interconnected global economy.

It would be awesome if we genuinely were a global society and economy but we are very much still divided by nations and race and religions. Unfortunately, even though the UK is currently tolerant many other countries are not. By encouraging more immigration I don't think we will lead the way to a global society (i.e. a type 1 society [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale ] which is the logical progression for humanity) but we will simply descend into a war-torn culture clash like the Middle East. This is because people coming to the UK do not adopt the type 1 ideals of a global society but simply stick together in their culture ghettos and don't mix.

We do need to progress to a type 1 society but if we drown out enlightened Europe with generally backward tribal or cult-esque cultures e.g. Islamic, it will make it even harder to do so. Immigration isn't necessarily bad, in fact it is positive, if there is proper integration but without that we risk these unwelcome cultures becoming dominant. I can imagine myself being negged to high hell for these comments but if someone wants to argue Islam isn't a backwards religion (like all religions to be fair, but Islam is a particularly bad one) I'd like to see them try.

(Original post by Tamora)
It can't be a free market when it's drowning in red tape either. It seems some regulations are fine whilst others are not. There's nothing irrational in wanting sensible regulation of immigration laws, ie not importing workers when we have able people here on benefits because they can't get jobs. If the market is less free because of that, then so be it.

And this is where the paradox in your thinking becomes clear. If you are happy to have a 'free market' limited by arbitrary lines which prevent individuals from freely conducting business, then you are not in favor of the free market. Immigration control is exactly the same as the red tape you claim to despise, in that it limits the machinery of the free market. It is impossible to reconcile neoliberal economics with nationalism/jingoism in any rational way, without conceding that you simply want to replace one lot of red tape with another.